hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: 0.98 patch acceptance criteria discussion
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:31:27 GMT
> I think the extra statement we have to make is that only the latest minor
version of the next major branch
> is guaranteed have all the improvements of the previous major branch.Or
phrased in other words:
> Improvements that are not bug fixes will only go into the x.y.0 minor
version, but not (by default anyway,
> the RM should use good judgment) into any existing minor version (and
thus not in a patch version > 0)

I think that's a fine statement.

I don't know if it's worth doing, but we could say in each minor release's
notes what the minimum minor release in the next major version is needed to
get a superset of functionality. This would only really impact Andrew right
now since all the 1.y.0 versions would be "2.0".


On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:47 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks Andy.
> I think the gist of the discussion boils down to this:We generally have
> two goals: (1) follow semver from 1.0.0 onward and (2) avoid losing
> features/improvements when upgrading from an older version to a newer one.
> Turns out these two are conflicting unless we follow certain additional
> policies.
> The issue at hand was a performance improvement that we added to 0.98,
> 1.3.0, and 2.0.0, but not 1.0.x, 1.1.x, and 1.2.x (x >= 1 in all cases)So
> when somebody would upgrade from 0.98 to (say) 1.1.7 (if/when that's out)
> that improvement would "silently" be lost.
> I think the extra statement we have to make is that only the latest minor
> version of the next major branch is guaranteed have all the improvements of
> the previous major branch.Or phrased in other words: Improvements that are
> not bug fixes will only go into the x.y.0 minor version, but not (by
> default anyway, the RM should use good judgment) into any existing minor
> version (and thus not in a patch version > 0)
>
> If that's OK with everybody we can just state that and move on (and I'll
> shut up :) ).
> -- Lars
>
>       From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>  To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>  Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:58 AM
>  Subject: 0.98 patch acceptance criteria discussion
>
> Hi devs,
>
> I'd like to call your attention to an interesting and important discussion
> taking place on the tail of HBASE-12596. It starts from here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12596?focusedCommentId=14628295&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14628295
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>   - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
>
>
>



-- 
Sean

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message